Method and Apparatus for Determining an Overlay Error

ABSTRACT

A method of, and associated apparatuses for, determining an overlay error resultant from structure defects such as asymmetry. The method comprises measuring scattering properties of a first target comprising a first structure and a second structure, constructing a model of the first structure using the measured scattering properties, the model comprising a first model structure corresponding to the first structure, modifying the model by overlaying the first model structure with an intermediate model structure, further modifying the model by replacing the intermediate model structure with a second model structure, corresponding to the second structure, calculating a second defect-induced overlay error between the first model structure and the second model structure, the first and second model structures being overlaid with respect to each other in the further modified model and determining an overlay error in a second target using the calculated second defect-induced overlay error.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/528,941, filed Aug. 30, 2011, which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.

FIELD

The present invention relates to methods and inspection apparatus for determining an overlay error, for example in the manufacture of devices by lithographic techniques using a lithographic apparatus.

BACKGROUND

A lithographic apparatus is a machine that applies a desired pattern onto a substrate, usually onto a target portion of the substrate. A lithographic apparatus can be used, for example, in the manufacture of integrated circuits (ICs). In that instance, a patterning device, which is alternatively referred to as a mask or a reticle, may be used to generate a circuit pattern to be formed on an individual layer of the IC. This pattern can be transferred onto a target portion (e.g., comprising part of, one, or several dies) on a substrate (e.g., a silicon wafer). Transfer of the pattern is typically via imaging onto a layer of radiation-sensitive material (resist) provided on the substrate. In general, a single substrate will contain a network of adjacent target portions that are successively patterned. Known lithographic apparatus include so-called steppers, in which each target portion is irradiated by exposing an entire pattern onto the target portion at one time, and so-called scanners, in which each target portion is irradiated by scanning the pattern through a radiation beam in a given direction (the “scanning”-direction) while synchronously scanning the substrate parallel or anti-parallel to this direction. It is also possible to transfer the pattern from the patterning device to the substrate by imprinting the pattern onto the substrate.

In order to monitor the lithographic process, parameters of the patterned substrate are measured. Parameters may include, for example, the overlay error between two layers formed in or on the patterned substrate and critical linewidth of developed photosensitive resist. This measurement may be performed on a product substrate and/or on a dedicated metrology target. There are various techniques for making measurements of the microscopic structures formed in lithographic processes, including the use of scanning electron microscopes and various specialized tools. A fast and non-destructive form of specialized inspection tool is a scatterometer in which a beam of radiation is directed onto a target on the surface of the substrate and properties of the scattered or reflected beam are measured. By comparing the properties of the beam before and after it has been reflected or scattered by the substrate, the properties of the substrate can be determined. This can be done, for example, by comparing the reflected beam with data stored in a library of known measurements associated with known substrate properties. Two main types of scatterometer are known. Spectroscopic scatterometers direct a broadband radiation beam onto the substrate and measure the spectrum (intensity as a function of wavelength) of the radiation scattered into a particular narrow angular range. Angularly resolved scatterometers use a monochromatic radiation beam and measure the intensity of the scattered radiation as a function of angle.

Semiconductor device manufacturers align wafers using gratings that are present on a wafer. An alignment sensor measures the location of a grating with sub-nm repeatability. The manufacturers also measure on-product overlay using overlapping gratings. Here sub-nm Total Measurement Uncertainty (TMU) numbers are easily achieved as well. However, overlay metrology and alignment sensors are sensitive to marker asymmetry caused by processing steps like etch, Chemical Mechanical Polishing (CMP) and deposition. These asymmetries lead to overlay and alignment errors that can be of the order of a few nm's. This effect starts to dominate the overlay budget and solutions are therefore needed.

Scatterometer measurement recipe selection (for example with each recipe having various wavelengths and polarizations of illumination) is currently performed using parameters such as mean Tool Induced Shift (TIS) and or TIS variability (a.k.a. TIS 3 sigma). There is a problem when the reference layer and/or resist layer exhibits an asymmetrical profile.

Asymmetries in the shape of a target grating will generally have an impact on the measured overlay. This impact can vary depending on the illumination setting used for the measurement.

Target recipe selection is performed without actual knowledge of the shape of the gratings after processing and imaging. Furthermore, the context of the current process is not used in the decision of recipe selection. The use of qualifiers that are based on TIS and/or TMU do not always lead to a measurement recipe that is most robust against target asymmetry.

SUMMARY

According to a first aspect of the present invention there is provided a method of determining an overlay error comprising measuring scattering properties of a first target comprising a first structure and a second structure, constructing a model of the first structure using the measured scattering properties, the model comprising a first model structure corresponding to the first structure, modifying the model by overlaying the first model structure with an intermediate model structure, calculating a first defect-induced overlay error between the first model structure and the intermediate model structure in the modified model, further modifying the model by replacing the intermediate model structure with a second model structure, corresponding to the second structure, calculating a second defect-induced overlay error between the first model structure and the second model structure, the first and second model structures being overlaid with respect to each other in the further modified model, and determining an overlay error in a second target using the calculated second defect-induced overlay error.

Further aspects of the present invention comprise inspection and lithographic apparatuses for performing a method similar to the above, and a computer program product comprising program instructions operable to perform a method similar to the above when run on such apparatuses.

Further features and advantages of the present invention, as well as the structure and operation of various embodiments of the present invention, are described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings. It is noted that the present invention is not limited to the specific embodiments described herein. Such embodiments are presented herein for illustrative purposes only. Additional embodiments will be apparent to persons skilled in the relevant art(s) based on the teachings contained herein.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS/FIGURES

The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated herein and form part of the specification, illustrate the present invention and, together with the description, further serve to explain the principles of the present invention and to enable a person skilled in the relevant art(s) to make and use the present invention.

FIG. 1 depicts a lithographic apparatus.

FIG. 2 depicts a lithographic cell or cluster.

FIG. 3 depicts a first scatterometer.

FIG. 4 depicts a second scatterometer.

FIG. 5 depicts a first example process for reconstruction of a structure from scatterometer measurements.

FIG. 6 depicts a second example process for reconstruction of a structure from scatterometer measurements.

FIG. 7 shows a detail of one element of a first grating overlaid with one element of a second grating, both elements exhibiting asymmetry.

FIG. 8 depicts a method of determining an overlay error in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention illustrating positioning of a centered top grating in the model.

FIG. 9 depicts a method of determining an overlay error in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention illustrating positioning of an offset top grating in the model.

FIGS. 10 a-10 c are graphs of measured overlay error (FIG. 10 a), calculated overlay correction (FIG. 10 b) and corrected overlay error (FIG. 10 c) against measurement wavelength.

The features and advantages of the present invention will become more apparent from the detailed description set forth below when taken in conjunction with the drawings, in which like reference characters identify corresponding elements throughout. In the drawings, like reference numbers generally indicate identical, functionally similar, and/or structurally similar elements. The drawing in which an element first appears is indicated by the leftmost digit(s) in the corresponding reference number.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

This specification discloses one or more embodiments that incorporate the features of this invention. The disclosed embodiment(s) merely exemplify the present invention. The scope of the present invention is not limited to the disclosed embodiment(s). The present invention is defined by the claims appended hereto.

The embodiment(s) described, and references in the specification to “one embodiment”, “an embodiment”, “an example embodiment”, etc., indicate that the embodiment(s) described may include a particular feature, structure, or characteristic, but every embodiment may not necessarily include the particular feature, structure, or characteristic. Moreover, such phrases are not necessarily referring to the same embodiment. Further, when a particular feature, structure, or characteristic is described in connection with an embodiment, it is understood that it is within the knowledge of one skilled in the art to effect such feature, structure, or characteristic in connection with other embodiments whether or not explicitly described.

Embodiments of the present invention may be implemented in hardware, firmware, software, or any combination thereof. Embodiments of the present invention may also be implemented as instructions stored on a machine-readable medium, which may be read and executed by one or more processors. A machine-readable medium may include any mechanism for storing or transmitting information in a form readable by a machine (e.g., a computing device). For example, a machine-readable medium may include read only memory (ROM); random access memory (RAM); magnetic disk storage media; optical storage media; flash memory devices; electrical, optical, acoustical or other forms of propagated signals (e.g., carrier waves, infrared signals, digital signals, etc.), and others. Further, firmware, software, routines, instructions may be described herein as performing certain actions. However, it should be appreciated that such descriptions are merely for convenience and that such actions in fact result from computing devices, processors, controllers, or other devices executing the firmware, software, routines, instructions, etc.

Before describing such embodiments in more detail, however, it is instructive to present an example environment in which embodiments of the present invention may be implemented.

FIG. 1 schematically depicts a lithographic apparatus. The apparatus comprises an illumination system (illuminator) IL configured to condition a radiation beam B (e.g., UV radiation or DUV radiation), a support structure (e.g., a mask table) MT constructed to support a patterning device (e.g., a mask) MA and connected to a first positioner PM configured to accurately position the patterning device in accordance with certain parameters, a substrate table (e.g., a wafer table) WT constructed to hold a substrate (e.g., a resist-coated wafer) W and connected to a second positioner PW configured to accurately position the substrate in accordance with certain parameters, and a projection system (e.g., a refractive projection lens system) PL configured to project a pattern imparted to the radiation beam B by patterning device MA onto a target portion C (e.g., comprising one or more dies) of the substrate W.

The illumination system may include various types of optical components, such as refractive, reflective, magnetic, electromagnetic, electrostatic or other types of optical components, or any combination thereof, for directing, shaping, or controlling radiation.

The support structure supports, i.e., bears the weight of, the patterning device. It holds the patterning device in a manner that depends on the orientation of the patterning device, the design of the lithographic apparatus, and other conditions, such as for example whether or not the patterning device is held in a vacuum environment. The support structure can use mechanical, vacuum, electrostatic or other clamping techniques to hold the patterning device. The support structure may be a frame or a table, for example, which may be fixed or movable as required. The support structure may ensure that the patterning device is at a desired position, for example with respect to the projection system. Any use of the terms “reticle” or “mask” herein may be considered synonymous with the more general term “patterning device.”

The term “patterning device” used herein should be broadly interpreted as referring to any device that can be used to impart a radiation beam with a pattern in its cross-section such as to create a pattern in a target portion of the substrate. It should be noted that the pattern imparted to the radiation beam may not exactly correspond to the desired pattern in the target portion of the substrate, for example if the pattern includes phase-shifting features or so called assist features. Generally, the pattern imparted to the radiation beam will correspond to a particular functional layer in a device being created in the target portion, such as an integrated circuit.

The patterning device may be transmissive or reflective. Examples of patterning devices include masks, programmable mirror arrays, and programmable LCD panels. Masks are well known in lithography, and include mask types such as binary, alternating phase-shift, and attenuated phase-shift, as well as various hybrid mask types. An example of a programmable mirror array employs a matrix arrangement of small mirrors, each of which can be individually tilted so as to reflect an incoming radiation beam in different directions. The tilted mirrors impart a pattern in a radiation beam, which is reflected by the mirror matrix.

The term “projection system” used herein should be broadly interpreted as encompassing any type of projection system, including refractive, reflective, catadioptric, magnetic, electromagnetic and electrostatic optical systems, or any combination thereof, as appropriate for the exposure radiation being used, or for other factors such as the use of an immersion liquid or the use of a vacuum. Any use of the term “projection lens” herein may be considered as synonymous with the more general term “projection system”.

As here depicted, the apparatus is of a transmissive type (e.g., employing a transmissive mask). Alternatively, the apparatus may be of a reflective type (e.g., employing a programmable mirror array of a type as referred to above, or employing a reflective mask).

The lithographic apparatus may be of a type having two (dual stage) or more substrate tables (and/or two or more mask tables). In such “multiple stage” machines the additional tables may be used in parallel, or preparatory steps may be carried out on one or more tables while one or more other tables are being used for exposure.

The lithographic apparatus may also be of a type wherein at least a portion of the substrate may be covered by a liquid having a relatively high refractive index, e.g., water, so as to fill a space between the projection system and the substrate. An immersion liquid may also be applied to other spaces in the lithographic apparatus, for example, between the mask and the projection system. Immersion techniques are well known in the art for increasing the numerical aperture of projection systems. The term “immersion” as used herein does not mean that a structure, such as a substrate, must be submerged in liquid, but rather only means that liquid is located between the projection system and the substrate during exposure.

Referring to FIG. 1, the illuminator IL receives a radiation beam from a radiation source SO. The source and the lithographic apparatus may be separate entities, for example when the source is an excimer laser. In such cases, the source is not considered to form part of the lithographic apparatus and the radiation beam is passed from the source SO to the illuminator IL with the aid of a beam delivery system BD comprising, for example, suitable directing mirrors and/or a beam expander. In other cases the source may be an integral part of the lithographic apparatus, for example when the source is a mercury lamp. The source SO and the illuminator IL, together with the beam delivery system BD if required, may be referred to as a radiation system.

The illuminator IL may comprise an adjuster AD for adjusting the angular intensity distribution of the radiation beam. Generally, at least the outer and/or inner radial extent (commonly referred to as σ-outer and σ-inner, respectively) of the intensity distribution in a pupil plane of the illuminator can be adjusted. In addition, the illuminator IL may comprise various other components, such as an integrator IN and a condenser CO. The illuminator may be used to condition the radiation beam, to have a desired uniformity and intensity distribution in its cross-section.

The radiation beam B is incident on the patterning device (e.g., mask MA), which is held on the support structure (e.g., mask table MT), and is patterned by the patterning device. Having traversed the mask MA, the radiation beam B passes through the projection system PL, which focuses the beam onto a target portion C of the substrate W. With the aid of the second positioner PW and position sensor IF (e.g., an interferometric device, linear encoder, 2-D encoder or capacitive sensor), the substrate table WT can be moved accurately, e.g., so as to position different target portions C in the path of the radiation beam B. Similarly, the first positioner PM and another position sensor (which is not explicitly depicted in FIG. 1) can be used to accurately position the mask MA with respect to the path of the radiation beam B, e.g., after mechanical retrieval from a mask library, or during a scan. In general, movement of the mask table MT may be realized with the aid of a long-stroke module (coarse positioning) and a short-stroke module (fine positioning), which form part of the first positioner PM. Similarly, movement of the substrate table WT may be realized using a long-stroke module and a short-stroke module, which form part of the second positioner PW. In the case of a stepper (as opposed to a scanner) the mask table MT may be connected to a short-stroke actuator only, or may be fixed. Mask MA and substrate W may be aligned using mask alignment marks M1, M2 and substrate alignment marks P1, P2. Although the substrate alignment marks as illustrated occupy dedicated target portions, they may be located in spaces between target portions (these are known as scribe-lane alignment marks). Similarly, in situations in which more than one die is provided on the mask MA, the mask alignment marks may be located between the dies.

The depicted apparatus could be used in at least one of the following modes:

1. In step mode, the mask table MT and the substrate table WT are kept essentially stationary, while an entire pattern imparted to the radiation beam is projected onto a target portion C at one time (i.e., a single static exposure). The substrate table WT is then shifted in the X and/or Y direction so that a different target portion C can be exposed. In step mode, the maximum size of the exposure field limits the size of the target portion C imaged in a single static exposure.

2. In scan mode, the mask table MT and the substrate table WT are scanned synchronously while a pattern imparted to the radiation beam is projected onto a target portion C (i.e., a single dynamic exposure). The velocity and direction of the substrate table WT relative to the mask table MT may be determined by the (de-)magnification and image reversal characteristics of the projection system PL. In scan mode, the maximum size of the exposure field limits the width (in the non-scanning direction) of the target portion in a single dynamic exposure, whereas the length of the scanning motion determines the height (in the scanning direction) of the target portion.

3. In another mode, the mask table MT is kept essentially stationary holding a programmable patterning device, and the substrate table WT is moved or scanned while a pattern imparted to the radiation beam is projected onto a target portion C. In this mode, generally a pulsed radiation source is employed and the programmable patterning device is updated as required after each movement of the substrate table WT or in between successive radiation pulses during a scan. This mode of operation can be readily applied to maskless lithography that utilizes programmable patterning device, such as a programmable mirror array of a type as referred to above.

Combinations and/or variations on the above described modes of use or entirely different modes of use may also be employed.

As shown in FIG. 2, the lithographic apparatus LA forms part of a lithographic cell LC, also sometimes referred to a lithocell or cluster, which also includes apparatus to perform pre- and post-exposure processes on a substrate. Conventionally these include spin coaters SC to deposit resist layers, developers DE to develop exposed resist, chill plates CH and bake plates BK. A substrate handler, or robot, RO picks up substrates from input/output ports I/O1, I/O2, moves them between the different process apparatus and delivers then to the loading bay LB of the lithographic apparatus. These devices, which are often collectively referred to as the track, are under the control of a track control unit TCU which is itself controlled by the supervisory control system SCS, which also controls the lithographic apparatus via lithography control unit LACU. Thus, the different apparatus can be operated to maximize throughput and processing efficiency.

In order that the substrates that are exposed by the lithographic apparatus are exposed correctly and consistently, it is desirable to inspect exposed substrates to measure properties such as overlay errors between two layers, line thicknesses, critical dimensions (CD), etc. If errors are detected, adjustments may be made to exposures of subsequent substrates, especially if the inspection can be done soon and fast enough that other substrates of the same batch are still to be exposed. Also, already exposed substrates may be stripped and reworked—to improve yield—or discarded, thereby avoiding performing exposures on substrates that are known to be faulty. In a case where only some target portions of a substrate are faulty, further exposures can be performed only on those target portions which are good.

An inspection apparatus is used to determine the properties of the substrates, and in particular, how the properties of different substrates or different layers of the same substrate vary from layer to layer. The inspection apparatus may be integrated into the lithographic apparatus LA or the lithocell LC or may be a stand-alone device. To enable most rapid measurements, it is desirable that the inspection apparatus measure properties in the exposed resist layer immediately after the exposure. However, the latent image in the resist has a very low contrast—there is only a very small difference in refractive index between the parts of the resist which have been exposed to radiation and those which have not—and not all inspection apparatus have sufficient sensitivity to make useful measurements of the latent image. Therefore measurements may be taken after the post-exposure bake step (PEB) which is customarily the first step carried out on exposed substrates and increases the contrast between exposed and unexposed parts of the resist. At this stage, the image in the resist may be referred to as semi-latent. It is also possible to make measurements of the developed resist image—at which point either the exposed or unexposed parts of the resist have been removed—or after a pattern transfer step such as etching. The latter possibility limits the possibilities for rework of faulty substrates but may still provide useful information.

FIG. 3 depicts a scatterometer which may be used in the present invention. It comprises a broadband (white light) radiation projector 2 which projects radiation onto a substrate W. The reflected radiation is passed to a spectrometer detector 4, which measures a spectrum 10 (intensity as a function of wavelength) of the specular reflected radiation. From this data, the structure or profile giving rise to the detected spectrum may be reconstructed by processing unit PU, e.g., by Rigorous Coupled Wave Analysis and non-linear regression or by comparison with a library of simulated spectra as shown at the bottom of FIG. 3. In general, for the reconstruction the general form of the structure is known and some parameters are assumed from knowledge of the process by which the structure was made, leaving only a few parameters of the structure to be determined from the scatterometry data. Such a scatterometer may be configured as a normal-incidence scatterometer or an oblique-incidence scatterometer. At normal incidence, however, this scatterometer has no sensitivity for pattern asymmetry. In order to detect pattern asymmetry in the 0-th diffraction order, oblique incidence is needed.

Another scatterometer that is more suitable for the present invention is shown in FIG. 4. In this device, the radiation emitted by radiation source 2 is collimated using lens system 12 and transmitted through interference filter 13 and polarizer 17, reflected by partially reflected surface 16 and is focused onto substrate W via a microscope objective lens 15, which has a high numerical aperture (NA), preferably at least 0.9 and more preferably at least 0.95. Immersion scatterometers may even have lenses with numerical apertures over 1. The reflected radiation then transmits through partially reflecting surface 16 into a detector 18 in order to have the scatter spectrum detected. The detector may be located in the back-projected pupil plane 11, which is at the focal length of the lens system 15, however the pupil plane may instead be re-imaged with auxiliary optics (not shown) onto the detector. The pupil plane is the plane in which the radial position of radiation defines the angle of incidence and the angular position defines azimuth angle of the radiation. The detector is preferably a two-dimensional detector so that a two-dimensional angular scatter spectrum of a substrate target 30 can be measured. The detector 18 may be, for example, an array of CCD or CMOS sensors, and may use an integration time of, for example, 40 milliseconds per frame.

A reference beam is often used for example to measure the intensity of the incident radiation. To do this, when the radiation beam is incident on the beam splitter 16 part of it is transmitted through the beam splitter as a reference beam towards a reference mirror 14. The reference beam is then projected onto a different part of the same detector 18 or alternatively on to a different detector (not shown).

A set of interference filters 13 is available to select a wavelength of interest in the range of, say, 405-790 nm or even lower, such as 200-300 nm. The interference filter may be tunable rather than comprising a set of different filters. A grating could be used instead of interference filters.

The detector 18 may measure the intensity of scattered light at a single wavelength (or narrow wavelength range), the intensity separately at multiple wavelengths or integrated over a wavelength range. Furthermore, the detector may separately measure the intensity of transverse magnetic- and transverse electric-polarized light and/or the phase difference between the transverse magnetic- and transverse electric-polarized light.

Using a broadband light source (i.e., one with a wide range of light frequencies or wavelengths—and therefore of colors) is possible, which gives a large etendue, allowing the mixing of multiple wavelengths. The plurality of wavelengths in the broadband preferably each has a bandwidth of Δλ and a spacing of at least 2 Δλ (i.e., twice the bandwidth). Several “sources” of radiation can be different portions of an extended radiation source which have been split using fiber bundles. In this way, angle resolved scatter spectra can be measured at multiple wavelengths in parallel. A 3-D spectrum (wavelength and two different angles) can be measured, which contains more information than a 2-D spectrum. This allows more information to be measured which increases metrology process robustness. This is described in more detail in EP1,628,164A, which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.

The target 30 on substrate W may be a 1-D periodic grating, which is printed such that after development, the bars are formed of solid resist lines. The target 30 may be a 2-D periodic grating, which is printed such that after development, the grating is formed of solid resist pillars or vias in the resist. The bars, pillars or vias may alternatively be etched into the substrate. This pattern is sensitive to chromatic aberrations in the lithographic projection apparatus, particularly the projection system PL, and illumination symmetry and the presence of such aberrations will manifest themselves in a variation in the printed grating. Accordingly, the scatterometry data of the printed gratings is used to reconstruct the gratings. The parameters of the 1-D grating, such as line widths and shapes, or parameters of the 2-D grating, such as pillar or via widths or lengths or shapes, may be input to the reconstruction process, performed by processing unit PU, from knowledge of the printing step and/or other scatterometry processes.

As described above, the target is on the surface of the substrate. This target will often take the shape of a series of lines in a grating or substantially rectangular structures in a 2-D array. The purpose of rigorous optical diffraction theories in metrology is effectively the calculation of a diffraction spectrum that is reflected from the target. In other words, target shape information is obtained for CD (critical dimension) uniformity and overlay metrology. Overlay metrology is a measuring system in which the overlay of two targets is measured in order to determine whether two layers on a substrate are aligned or not. CD uniformity is simply a measurement of the uniformity of the grating on the spectrum to determine how the exposure system of the lithographic apparatus is functioning. Specifically, CD, or critical dimension, is the width of the object that is “written” on the substrate and is the limit at which a lithographic apparatus is physically able to write on a substrate.

Using one of the scatterometers described above in combination with modeling of a target structure such as the target 30 and its diffraction properties, measurement of the shape and other parameters of the structure can be performed in a number of ways. In a first type of process, represented by FIG. 5, a diffraction pattern based on a first estimate of the target shape (a first candidate structure) is calculated and compared with the observed diffraction pattern. Parameters of the model are then varied systematically and the diffraction re-calculated in a series of iterations, to generate new candidate structures and so arrive at a best fit. In a second type of process, represented by FIG. 6, diffraction spectra for many different candidate structures are calculated in advance to create a ‘library’ of diffraction spectra. Then the diffraction pattern observed from the measurement target is compared with the library of calculated spectra to find a best fit. Both methods can be used together: a coarse fit can be obtained from a library, followed by an iterative process to find a best fit.

Referring to FIG. 5 in more detail, the way the measurement of the target shape and/or material properties is carried out will be described in summary. The target will be assumed for this description to be periodic in only 1 direction (1-D structure). In practice it may be periodic in 2 directions (2-dimensional structure), and the processing will be adapted accordingly.

In step 502: The diffraction pattern of the actual target on the substrate is measured using a scatterometer such as those described above. This measured diffraction pattern is forwarded to a calculation system such as a computer. The calculation system may be the processing unit PU referred to above, or it may be a separate apparatus.

In step 503: A ‘model recipe’ is established which defines a parameterized model of the target structure in terms of a number of parameters p_(i) (p₁, p₂, p₃ and so on). These parameters may represent for example, in a 1D periodic structure, the angle of a side wall, the height or depth of a feature, the width of the feature. Properties of the target material and underlying layers are also represented by parameters such as refractive index (at a particular wavelength present in the scatterometry radiation beam). Specific examples will be given below. Importantly, while a target structure may be defined by dozens of parameters describing its shape and material properties, the model recipe will define many of these to have fixed values, while others are to be variable or ‘floating’ parameters for the purpose of the following process steps. Further below we describe the process by which the choice between fixed and floating parameters is made. Moreover, we shall introduce ways in which parameters can be permitted to vary without being fully independent floating parameters. For the purposes of describing FIG. 5, only the variable parameters are considered as parameters p_(i).

In step 504: A model target shape is estimated by setting initial values p_(i) ⁽⁰⁾ for the floating parameters (i.e., p₁ ⁽⁰⁾, p₂ ⁽⁰⁾, p₃ ⁽⁰⁾ and so on). Each floating parameter will be generated within certain predetermined ranges, as defined in the recipe.

In step 506: The parameters representing the estimated shape, together with the optical properties of the different elements of the model, are used to calculate the scattering properties, for example using a rigorous optical diffraction method such as RCWA or any other solver of Maxwell equations. This gives an estimated or model diffraction pattern of the estimated target shape.

In steps 508 and 510: The measured diffraction pattern and the model diffraction pattern are then compared and their similarities and differences are used to calculate a “merit function” for the model target shape.

In step 512: Assuming that the merit function indicates that the model needs to be improved before it represents accurately the actual target shape, new parameters p₁ ⁽¹⁾, p₂ ⁽¹⁾, p₃ ⁽¹⁾, etc. are estimated and fed back iteratively into step 506.

Steps 506-512 are repeated.

In order to assist the search, the calculations in step 506 may further generate partial derivatives of the merit function, indicating the sensitivity with which increasing or decreasing a parameter will increase or decrease the merit function, in this particular region in the parameter space. The calculation of merit functions and the use of derivatives is generally known in the art, and will not be described here in detail.

In step 514: When the merit function indicates that this iterative process has converged on a solution with a desired accuracy, the currently estimated parameters are reported as the measurement of the actual target structure.

The computation time of this iterative process is largely determined by the forward diffraction model used, i.e., the calculation of the estimated model diffraction pattern using a rigorous optical diffraction theory from the estimated target structure. If more parameters are required, then there are more degrees of freedom. The calculation time increases in principle with the power of the number of degrees of freedom. The estimated or model diffraction pattern calculated at 506 can be expressed in various forms. Comparisons are simplified if the calculated pattern is expressed in the same form as the measured pattern generated in step 510. For example, a modeled spectrum can be compared easily with a spectrum measured by the apparatus of FIG. 3; a modeled pupil pattern can be compared easily with a pupil pattern measured by the apparatus of FIG. 4.

Throughout this description from FIG. 5 onward, the term ‘diffraction pattern’ will be used, on the assumption that the scatterometer of FIG. 4 is used. The skilled person can readily adapt the teaching to different types of scatterometer, or even other types of measurement instrument.

FIG. 6 illustrates an alternative example process in which plurality of model diffraction patterns for different estimated target shapes (candidate structures) are calculated in advance and stored in a library for comparison with a real measurement. The underlying principles and terminology are the same as for the process of FIG. 5. The steps of the FIG. 6 process are:

In step 602: The process of generating the library begins. A separate library may be generated for each type of target structure. The library may be generated by a user of the measurement apparatus according to need, or may be pre-generated by a supplier of the apparatus.

In step 603: A ‘model recipe’ is established which defines a parameterized model of the target structure in terms of a number of parameters p_(i) (p₁, p₂, p₃ and so on). Considerations are similar to those in step 503 of the iterative process.

In step 604: A first set of parameters p₁ ⁽⁰⁾, p₂ ⁽⁰⁾, p₃ ⁽⁰⁾, etc. is generated, for example by generating random values of all the parameters, each within its expected range of values.

In step 606: A model diffraction pattern is calculated and stored in a library, representing the diffraction pattern expected from a target shape represented by the parameters.

In step 608: A new set of shape parameters p₁ ⁽¹⁾, p₂ ⁽¹⁾, p₃ ⁽¹⁾, etc. is generated. Steps 606-608 are repeated tens, hundreds or even thousands of times, until the library which comprises all the stored modeled diffraction patterns is judged sufficiently complete. Each stored pattern represents a sample point in the multi-dimensional parameter space. The samples in the library should populate the sample space with a sufficient density that any real diffraction pattern will be sufficiently closely represented.

In step 610: After the library is generated (though it could be before), the real target 30 is placed in the scatterometer and its diffraction pattern is measured.

In step 612: The measured pattern is compared with the modeled patterns stored in the library to find the best matching pattern. The comparison may be made with every sample in the library, or a more systematic searching strategy may be employed, to reduce computational burden.

In step 614: If a match is found then the estimated target shape used to generate the matching library pattern can be determined to be the approximate object structure. The shape parameters corresponding to the matching sample are output as the measured shape parameters. The matching process may be performed directly on the model diffraction signals, or it may be performed on substitute models which are optimized for fast evaluation.

In step 616: Optionally, the nearest matching sample is used as a starting point, and a refinement process is used to obtain the final parameters for reporting. This refinement process may comprise an iterative process very similar to that shown in FIG. 5, for example.

Whether refining step 616 is needed or not is a matter of choice for the implementer. If the library is very densely sampled, then iterative refinement may not be needed because a good match will always be found. On the other hand, such a library might be too large for practical use. A practical solution is thus to use a library search for a coarse set of parameters, followed by one or more iterations using the merit function to determine a more accurate set of parameters to report the parameters of the target substrate with a desired accuracy. Where additional iterations are performed, it would be an option to add the calculated diffraction patterns and associated refined parameter sets as new entries in the library. In this way, a library can be used initially which is based on a relatively small amount of computational effort, but which builds into a larger library using the computational effort of the refining step 616. Whichever scheme is used, a further refinement of the value of one or more of the reported variable parameters can also be obtained based upon the goodness of the matches of multiple candidate structures. For example, the parameter values finally reported may be produced by interpolating between parameter values of two or more candidate structures, assuming both or all of those candidate structures have a high matching score.

The computation time of this iterative process is largely determined by the forward diffraction model at steps 506 and 606, i.e., the calculation of the estimated model diffraction pattern using a rigorous optical diffraction theory from the estimated target shape.

For overlay critical applications, scatterometry techniques such as those described above, are often used for overlay metrology (DBO: Diffraction-Based Overlay). In DBO a resist grating (“layer-2”) is printed on top of a processed grating (“layer-1”) and overlay derived via an intensity measurement of the diffracted light. Often multiple grating pairs are used where a deliberate shift (bias) is introduced between layer-1 and layer-2. This allows an OV measurement without the need to reconstruct the complete stack of layers and gratings.

The processed grating in layer-1 can be asymmetric. This leads to a measured OV value which depends on the measurement setting (wavelength, angle of incidence, polarization). Earlier filed application, U.S. application Ser. No. 13/181,932, which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety, disclosed a method to address this issue, in which the asymmetry is reconstructed and used to calculate a process error that can be used to correct a measured overlay that has been obtained with a specific measurement setting (recipe). In addition to asymmetry of processed grating, this method can also correct for small differences between multiple grating pairs, for example a mid-CD difference due to mask writing errors or layer thicknesses of (spin-coated) thin films.

However, sometimes additional processing effects are introduced when layer-2 is printed. The processing effects can be, for example, asymmetric resist lines. Additionally or alternatively, the process effects may be other processing differences between multiple grating pairs in layer-2, such as resist width differences due to mask writing errors. These effects are not captured in the earlier filed application mentioned above, which corrects only for layer-1 process effects. The methods disclosed herein will also provide correction for layer-2 processing effects.

FIG. 7 shows such part of structure comprising main layers, Layer-1 L1 and layer-2 L2. In the example shown, Layer-1 L1 comprises a processed grating, which is formed in sub-layers 408 and 410 and has process-induced asymmetric distortion, with a side wall at the left side that has a shallower slope than the side wall at the right side. Layer-2 L2 comprises a resist grating 412 which also shows asymmetry, in both its height and its wall angles.

FIG. 8 depicts a method of determining an overlay error in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention illustrating positioning of a centered top grating in the model. 702: The scattering properties of a layer-1 (L1) target on a wafer are measured. The measured target comprises a first structure 706, such as a processed grating, which is formed in layers 708 and 710. Structure 706 has process-induced asymmetric distortion with, in this example, a side wall at the left side that has a shallower slope than the side wall at the right side. Using a scatterometer, such as SM2 described with reference to FIG. 4, the target is illuminated with an illumination profile (for example using an aperture) of radiation 712. The scattered radiation 714 is detected in the pupil plane to obtain an angular resolved spectrum. The illumination profile may be such that at least one characteristic of the target can be reconstructed using the separately detected zeroth diffracted order and a higher diffracted order, and comprise two diagonally opposite quadrants of illumination. In this case, the first order diffraction pattern will be seen in the two quadrants corresponding to the dark quadrants in the illumination profile and the zeroth order (reflected) diffraction pattern will be seen in the other two quadrants. The diffraction orders are therefore separated, without the disadvantage of a conventional annular profile which leads to part of the first diffraction order being mixed up in the pupil pane with the zeroth order Annular illumination profiles can lead to errors in measured target asymmetry since annular illumination provides less information in the diffracted light. For example, in annular illumination, there are no light beams near normal incidence that contain information useful for measuring target asymmetry.

In step 718: A layer-1 model of the layer-1 target is constructed, using a modeling process as described with reference to FIGS. 5 and 6. The model structures 722 to 726 correspond to the target structures 706 to 710 respectively. The processed layer-1 target is thus reconstructed including its asymmetric distortion.

In step 728: The layer-1 model is modified based on asymmetry of the layer-1 model structure 722. This involves defining a positional parameter, in this example the center point (the “0” position) 732, of the layer-1 model structure 722, to compensate for its asymmetry. The semiconductor device manufacturer (i.e., the end-user) can give input to define this center position 732 based on a physical explanation or model of the process or other methods such as correlation to electrical overlay measurements or device yield. The center 732 may be defined for example with knowledge of the intended structure shape (without any process-induced asymmetry).

In this embodiment, a perfect layer-2 model structure 730, representing a resist grating in this example, is introduced to the model at this stage. The layer-1 model structure 722 and perfect layer-2 model structure 730 are positioned relative to each other using the positional parameter. Perfect in this sense means a perfectly formed and symmetrical resist grating structure, without defect. In this example, layer-2 model structure 730 is placed on the layer-1 model structure 722 in such a way that the resist grating 730 is centered on top of the center 732 of the processed grating 722 (i.e., the overlay error is zero). This may be performed entirely in software, so no real experiments are needed. As shown in FIG. 8, the position has been adjusted such that the center of the layer-2 structure 730, in between arrows b, is at the same position as the center 732 of the underlying structure 722, in between arrows a. In FIG. 7, the width of the upper model structures 720 and 730, b+b, is the same as the width of the lower model structure (without any process-induced asymmetry), a+a. However, it will be appreciated that the widths may be different, i.e., a≠b.

In step 734: An asymmetry-induced overlay error OV_(L1) between the first 722 and second 730 model structures, which results solely from layer-1 asymmetry (as layer-2 is perfect), can be determined using the modified model. The layer-1 asymmetry-induced overlay error may be calculated by a numerical calculation to simulate a scatterometer overlay measurement on the modified model. An example of such a measurement is disclosed in U.S. Patent Publication US 2006/0033921 A1. Typically, this is repeated for several scatterometer measurement recipes so that a set of asymmetry-induced overlay error values are prepared for the different recipes, for example with different combinations of illumination wavelengths and polarizations. From this the sum of recipe-to-recipe variations that are introduced by layer-1 ΔOV_(L1) is obtained.

In step 736: After layer-2 has been printed, the full structure comprising layer-1 structure 706 and layer-2 structure 742 is measured for various measurement settings (recipes) in which one or more of (for example) wavelength, illumination angle, polarization is varied. These measurements can be done sequentially and/or in parallel. The measured recipe-to-recipe variation is denoted by ΔOV_(m) and can be considered to be the sum of recipe-to-recipe variations that are introduced by layer-1 asymmetries and recipe-to-recipe variations that are introduced by layer-2 asymmetries. This can be written as:

ΔOV _(m) =ΔOV _(L1) +ΔOV _(L2)

ΔOV_(L1) is the sum of the recipe to recipe variations due to layer-1, just calculated. The extra recipe-to-recipe variation that is caused by layer-2 asymmetries is denoted by ΔOV_(L2). It is proposed to reconstruct this term from ΔOV_(m) using a model-based reconstruction technique. In doing this, a model is made of the layer-2 asymmetries. These asymmetries are described by 1 or more unknown parameters p_(i).

The term ΔOV_(L2) can be written as:

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {{\Delta \; {OV}_{L\; 2}} = {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{M}{p_{i}\frac{{\partial\Delta}\; {OV}_{L\; 2}}{\partial p_{i}}}}} \\ {= {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{M}{p_{i}S_{i,{L\; 2}}}}} \end{matrix} & {{Equation}\mspace{14mu} 1} \end{matrix}$

Here S_(i,L2) is the sensitivity of the recipe-to-recipe OV variation due to parameter p_(i) in layer L2. It should be noted that this parameter does not necessarily have to be an asymmetry parameter. It can also be a parameter that describes a small difference between grating pairs. The sensitivity can either be calculated using nominal stack data, such as film thicknesses or it can be calculated using reconstructed values of film thicknesses. This is essentially done in the same way as in other reconstruction techniques, wherein the value of one parameter is varied and the effect of this on the model is observed.

In step 738: The parameters p_(i) can now be determined by minimizing the mean-squared error ε that is defined as:

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {ɛ = {{{\Delta \; {OV}_{m}} - {\Delta \; {OV}_{L\; 1}} - {\Delta \; {OV}_{L\; 2}}}}^{2}} \\ {= {{{\Delta \; {OV}_{m}} - {\Delta \; {OV}_{L\; 1}} - {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{M}{p_{i}S_{i,{L\; 2}}}}}}^{2}} \end{matrix} & {{Equation}\mspace{14mu} 2} \end{matrix}$

In step 740: The model of step 728 can now be modified by replacing the perfect grating 730 with a model 750 of the actual asymmetric layer-2 structure, with asymmetry defined by parameters p_(i). This model is treated in a similar way to steps 728 and 734. As before, the two structures are aligned without any overlay, such that any measured overlay is due only to asymmetry (although other embodiments may use a deliberate bias as described below). The asymmetry-induced overlay error is calculated by a numerical calculation to simulate a scatterometer overlay measurement on the model, repeated for several scatterometer measurement recipes m so that a set of corrections OV_(c) are prepared for subsequent use with the different recipes m, for example with different combinations of illumination wavelengths and polarizations. This asymmetry-induced overlay error OV_(c) is the correction that is subsequently applied to overlay measurements during semiconductor device production.

The measured (uncorrected) overlay error OV′_(m) is obtained using recipe m in a scatterometer to measure an angular-resolved spectrum of a second target, such as on a production semiconductor wafer. The measured second target comprises a layer-1 structure, such as a processed grating, having process-induced asymmetric distortion similar to that of structure 706 and a layer-2 structure, also having process-induced asymmetric distortion similar to that of structure 742. Using a scatterometer, such as SM2 described with reference to FIG. 4, the target is illuminated with an illumination profile of radiation. The scattered radiation is detected to obtain an angular resolved spectrum. The annular illumination profile is suitable for a diffraction-based overlay measurement method to be used, such as disclosed in US Patent Publication US 2006/0033921 A1. That method does not include any reconstruction, so is fast enough for production wafers, but is degraded by asymmetry in the underlying processed grating, which is ideally corrected for.

The corrected overlay error OV′ is determined by calculating the difference between the asymmetry-induced overlay error for recipe m, OV_(c) and a measured overlay error OV′_(m) of the second target. Thus, corrected overlay error OV′=OV′_(m)−OV_(A).

The overlay correction may be calculated using a calculated overlay number OV′_(m) taking all pixels at coordinates x and y in the measurement pupil plane into account, i.e.,

${OV}^{\prime} = {{\sum\limits_{x,y}^{\;}{OV}_{m,x,y}^{\prime}} - {\sum\limits_{x,y}^{\;}{{OV}_{m,x,y}.}}}$

Alternatively, an overlay correction for every pixel can be calculated first individually and then the net overlay error calculated by averaging the overlay over all pixels, i.e.,

${OV}^{\prime} = {\sum\limits_{x,y}^{\;}{\left( {{OV}_{m,x,y}^{\prime} - {OV}_{m,x,y}} \right).}}$

For the measurement of the overlay error OV′ in the second target, the optimum recipe may be determined and selected to be used for this step in accordance with the embodiment described below with reference to FIG. 11.

Since the target shape will vary over a wafer, the above method may be performed for every target on the wafer or a representative subset of targets.

This embodiment has the effect of reducing processing variations in semiconductor manufacturing and ultimately helps to improve overlay. This, in turn, increases semiconductor manufacturing yield.

These calculations of the asymmetry-induced overlay error OV_(m) for different measurement recipes m may be performed for centered gratings as described with reference to FIG. 8, which is useful to correct measurements of overlay errors close to zero, where OV′_(m)=0. However, for measuring large overlay errors OV′_(m)≈X it is useful to calculate this asymmetry-induced overlay error around the measured overlay error X, that is OV_(m,X≈OV′m). Therefore the corrected overlay error is OV′=OV′_(m)−OV_(m,X≈OV′m). This is because of the non-linear behavior of diffraction based overlay. The same amount of target asymmetry will give slightly different asymmetry-induced overlay errors for an overlay error near zero compared to a large overlay error.

FIG. 9 depicts a method of determining an overlay error in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention illustrating positioning of an offset top grating in the model. In FIG. 9, numerals the same as in FIG. 8 correspond to the same steps and objects. However, in FIG. 9, in step 828 the layer-1 model is modified by inserting the layer-2 model structure 830, which represents the perfect top resist grating, on the reconstructed process stack in such a way that the resist grating 830 is offset by a distance X from the center 732 of the processed grating 722 (i.e., the overlay error is X).

This may be repeated for several values of X to build a library or lookup table of asymmetry-induced overlay errors for a range of offsets X, as well as different recipes m. X may be equal to 0, which is equivalent to the case illustrated by FIG. 8. In step 834 a layer-1 asymmetry-induced overlay error ΔOV_(m,X) between the first 722 and second 830 model structures is determined using the modified model for each of the values of X. As before, the sum of recipe-to-recipe variations that are introduced by layer-1 ΔOVL1,X, for each offset X, is obtained.

The top product grating structure 842 is shown having an offset of approximately X from the underlying product grating 706. Step 836 is the same as for step 736 except that the value of layer-1 asymmetry-induced overlay error is selected to match the measured overlay error X. Similarly, Step 836 is the same as that of step 736, but layer-2 structure 850 is modeled with offset X.

FIGS. 10 a-10 c illustrate the effect on overlay measurement obtained by the above methods. FIG. 10 a shows the raw measured overlay for different recipes (7 wavelengths and TE/TM polarizations). FIG. 10 b shows the calculated process error that has been obtained via the methods disclosed herein, for each of the recipes. In this particular example, there were 3 unknown layer-2 parameters:

1. resist mid CD difference 1.5 nm 2. resist slope asymmetry: 4 nm (difference between width of left and right edges) 3. resist height asymmetry: −0.9 nm

FIG. 10 c shows the corrected overlay that has been obtained by subtracting the reconstructed process error from the raw overlay. It can be seen that a more consistent overlay number has been obtained with this invention, with very little recipe to recipe variation.

The ideas disclosed herein can be extended to obtain layer-1 parameter values as well. In that case, the recipe-to-recipe OV variation that is introduced by layer-1 asymmetries can be written as:

$\begin{matrix} {{\Delta \; {OV}_{L1}} = {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N}{q_{j}\frac{{\partial\Delta}\; {OV}_{L\; 1}}{\partial q_{j}}}}} \\ {= {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N}{q_{j}S_{j,{L\; 1}}}}} \end{matrix}$

The terms q_(j) denote the layer-1 process parameter that gives rise to recipe-to-recipe OV variations and S_(j,L1) is the sensitivity that is associated with this parameter. The parameters p_(i) are now determined by minimizing the mean-squared error ε that is defined as

$\begin{matrix} {ɛ = {{{\Delta \; {OV}_{m}} - {\Delta \; {OV}_{L\; 1}} - {\Delta \; {OV}_{L\; 2}}}}^{2}} \\ {= {{{\Delta \; {OV}_{m}} - {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N}{q_{j}S_{j,{L\; 1}}}} - {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{M}{p_{i}S_{i,{L\; 2}}}}}}^{2}} \end{matrix}$

In this case N+M parameters are obtained, which describe the (asymmetric) process effects that give rise to the measured OV variation ΔOV_(m).

The model obtained at 740 and 840 can also be used to determine an optimum recipe for measuring a production target. To do this, an asymmetry parameter of either the layer-1 structure or layer-2 structure is varied. For each variation of the selected asymmetry parameter, models of the reconstructed shape and its (expected) variations are fed into a forward calculator to calculate asymmetry-induced overlay errors. These calculated asymmetry-induced overlay errors are then used to select an optimum scatterometer measurement recipe for measuring the production target, for example with the optimum wavelength and polarization. The recipe showing the most stable behavior to these model variations is selected as being the optimal recipe. Stable behavior may be determined as low sensitivity to the model shape parameter variation. Context information may be used in analyzing the variation, for example if a line is to be placed on top of a contact, it is important to focus on measurements of scattering by the top of the profile to select the recipe that gives an optimal result.

The methods disclosed herein can reconstruct layer-2 process effects such as resist pattern asymmetry without the need to measure layer-2 separate from layer-1 (i.e., it is possible to measure grating-on-grating).

The methods according to embodiments of the present invention may be implemented in the processor PU of the scatterometer SM2 in FIG. 4 by executing a computer program product containing one or more sequences of machine-readable instructions to cause one or more processors to perform the methods described herein.

The scatterometer may be a stand-alone inspection apparatus or may be incorporated into the lithography apparatus LA or lithographic cell LC of FIGS. 1 and 2 respectively.

Although specific reference may be made in this text to the use of methods and apparatus in the manufacture of ICs, it should be understood that the inspection methods and apparatus described herein may have other applications, such as the manufacture of integrated optical systems, guidance and detection patterns for magnetic domain memories, flat-panel displays, liquid-crystal displays (LCDs), thin film magnetic heads, etc. The skilled artisan will appreciate that, in the context of such alternative applications, any use of the terms “wafer” or “die” herein may be considered as synonymous with the more general terms “substrate” or “target portion”, respectively. The substrate referred to herein may be processed, before or after exposure, in for example a track (a tool that typically applies a layer of resist to a substrate and develops the exposed resist), a metrology tool and/or an inspection tool. Where applicable, the disclosure herein may be applied to such and other substrate processing tools. Further, the substrate may be processed more than once, for example in order to create a multi-layer IC, so that the term substrate used herein may also refer to a substrate that already contains multiple processed layers.

Although specific reference may have been made above to the use of embodiments of the present invention in the context of optical lithography, it will be appreciated that the present invention may be used in other applications, for example imprint lithography, and where the context allows, is not limited to optical lithography. In imprint lithography a topography in a patterning device defines the pattern created on a substrate. The topography of the patterning device may be pressed into a layer of resist supplied to the substrate whereupon the resist is cured by applying electromagnetic radiation, heat, pressure or a combination thereof. The patterning device is moved out of the resist leaving a pattern in it after the resist is cured.

The terms “radiation” and “beam” used herein encompass all types of electromagnetic radiation, including ultraviolet (UV) radiation (e.g., having a wavelength of or about 365, 355, 248, 193, 157 or 126 nm) and extreme ultra-violet (EUV) radiation (e.g., having a wavelength in the range of 5-20 nm), as well as particle beams, such as ion beams or electron beams.

The term “lens”, where the context allows, may refer to any one or combination of various types of optical components, including refractive, reflective, magnetic, electromagnetic and electrostatic optical components.

While specific embodiments of the present invention have been described above, it will be appreciated that the present invention may be practiced otherwise than as described. For example, the present invention may take the form of a computer program containing one or more sequences of machine-readable instructions describing a method as disclosed above, or a data storage medium (e.g., semiconductor memory, magnetic or optical disk) having such a computer program stored therein.

The descriptions above are intended to be illustrative, not limiting. Thus, it will be apparent to one skilled in the art that modifications may be made to the present invention as described without departing from the scope of the claims set out below.

It is to be appreciated that the Detailed Description section, and not the Summary and Abstract sections, is intended to be used to interpret the claims. The Summary and Abstract sections may set forth one or more but not all exemplary embodiments of the present invention as contemplated by the inventor(s), and thus, are not intended to limit the present invention and the appended claims in any way.

The present invention has been described above with the aid of functional building blocks illustrating the implementation of specified functions and relationships thereof. The boundaries of these functional building blocks have been arbitrarily defined herein for the convenience of the description. Alternate boundaries can be defined so long as the specified functions and relationships thereof are appropriately performed.

The foregoing description of the specific embodiments will so fully reveal the general nature of the present invention that others can, by applying knowledge within the skill of the art, readily modify and/or adapt for various applications such specific embodiments, without undue experimentation, without departing from the general concept of the present invention. Therefore, such adaptations and modifications are intended to be within the meaning and range of equivalents of the disclosed embodiments, based on the teaching and guidance presented herein. It is to be understood that the phraseology or terminology herein is for the purpose of description and not of limitation, such that the terminology or phraseology of the present specification is to be interpreted by the skilled artisan in light of the teachings and guidance.

The breadth and scope of the present invention should not be limited by any of the above-described exemplary embodiments, but should be defined only in accordance with the following claims and their equivalents. 

1. A method of determining an overlay error comprising: measuring scattering properties of a first target comprising a first structure and a second structure; constructing a model of the first structure using the measured scattering properties, the model comprising a first model structure corresponding to the first structure; modifying the model by overlaying the first model structure with an intermediate model structure; calculating a first defect-induced overlay error between the first model structure and the intermediate model structure in the modified model; further modifying the model by replacing the intermediate model structure with a second model structure, corresponding to the second structure; calculating a second defect-induced overlay error between the first model structure and the second model structure, the first and second model structures being overlaid with respect to each other in the further modified model; and determining an overlay error in a second target using the calculated second defect-induced overlay error.
 2. The method of claim 1 wherein: the measuring scattering properties of a first target comprises measuring the scattering properties of the first target prior to formation of the second structure, and using the resultant measured scattering properties in the constructing a model of the first structure; and subsequently measuring the scattering properties of the first target after formation of the second structure, and using the resultant measured scattering properties in the further modification of the model by replacing the intermediate model structure with a second model structure.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the intermediate model structure does not exhibit any defect.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the modifying the model comprises the steps of: defining a positional parameter of the first model structure to compensate for the defect; and positioning the first and intermediate model structures relative to each other using the defined positional parameter.
 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the further modifying the model by replacing the intermediate model structure with a second model structure comprises placing the second model structure in the same position as the intermediate model, relative to the first model structure.
 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the first and intermediate model structures are overlaid relative to each other with zero offset.
 7. The method of claim 1, wherein: the first and intermediate model structures are overlaid relative to each other with a predetermined non-zero offset, the method being repeated for a plurality of different non-zero offsets; and the determining an overlay error in a second target using the calculated second defect-induced overlay error comprises selecting a calculated second defect-induced overlay error obtained with a predetermined offset with closest correspondence to a measured overlay error of the second target.
 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the calculating a second defect-induced overlay error between the first model structure and the second model structure comprises calculating one or more parameters describing defects in the second structure.
 9. The method of claim 8, wherein the calculating one or more parameters (p_(i)) describing defects in the second structure comprises minimizing the mean square error (ε), defined as: ε=∥ΔOV _(m) −ΔOV _(L1)−Σ_(i=1) ^(M) p _(i) S _(i,L2)∥² wherein is ΔOV_(m) is the sum of measured variations in overlay measurements between different scattering property measurement recipes, ΔOV_(L1) is the sum of the variations in the overlay calculations between the different scattering property measurement recipes, resultant from defects in the first structure and S_(i,L2) is the sensitivity of the variations in the overlay calculations between the different scattering property measurement recipes, due to parameter p_(i).
 10. The method of claim 8, wherein the calculating a second defect-induced overlay error between the first model structure and the second model structure additionally comprises calculating one or more parameters describing defects in the first structure.
 11. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining an overlay error in a second target comprises calculating the difference between the second defect-induced overlay error and a measured overlay error of the second target.
 12. The method of claim 1, further comprising adjusting a model structure parameter value to vary the defect-induced overlay error and repeating the calculating a second defect-induced overlay error for a plurality of model structure parameter values for a plurality of scattering property measurement recipes, wherein the determining an overlay error in the second target comprises using the calculated defect-induced overlay errors to select an optimum scattering property measurement recipe used to measure the second target.
 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the calculating a defect-induced overlay error comprises calculating an overlay error at a plurality of pixels in a pupil plane of an angular resolved scatterometer while excluding pixels that have the largest overlay errors in response to the defects of the first model structure.
 14. The method of claim 1, wherein the first and second defect-induced overlay errors are resultant from asymmetry in the subject structure.
 15. A tangible computer readable storage medium having program instructions stored thereon, execution of which by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: measuring scattering properties of a first target comprising a first structure and a second structure; constructing a model of the first structure using the measured scattering properties, the model comprising a first model structure corresponding to the first structure; modifying the model by overlaying the first model structure with an intermediate model structure; calculating a first defect-induced overlay error between the first model structure and the intermediate model structure in the modified model; further modifying the model by replacing the intermediate model structure with a second model structure, corresponding to the second structure; calculating a second defect-induced overlay error between the first model structure and the second model structure, the first and second model structures being overlaid with respect to each other in the further modified model; and determining an overlay error in a second target using the calculated second defect-induced overlay error. 